Words and Silences is the Digital Edition Journal of the International Oral History Association.

It includes articles from a wide range of disciplines and is a means for the professional community to share projects and current trends of oral history from around the world.

http://ioha.org

Online ISSN 2222-4181

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, PO Box 1866,

Mountain View, CA 94042, USA

Words and Silences September 2019

“Memory and Narration”

My grandpa wasn’t a Hungarian! The Stigmata of home comers to Czechoslovakia through the second and third generation viewpoint 1

Mgr. Lucia Heldáková, Institute of Social Sciences, Centre of Social and Psychological Sciences, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Košice, heldakova@saske.sk

Mgr. Klara Kohoutová, PhD., Institute of Social Sciences, Centre of Social and Psychological Sciences, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Košice, kohoutova@saske.sk

Abstract

After World War II, a population exchange between Czechoslovakia and Hungary was

realized. The winning powers denied one-way transfer of Hungarians from Czechoslovakia as

it was used at German minority. Therefore, the population exchange was considered as the

only option. Some of the Slovaks who had lived in Hungary in diasporas for decades did not

receive very well the population exchange report. Others were enthusiastic about it. The fact

remains that “returnee Slovaks” were not considered as Slovaks in their homeland in general,

and their lives were marked by the exchange forever. How did they identify themselves? How

did they talk about the exchange to their children and grandchildren?

The aim of this contribution is to elucidate the collective memory and collective

remembering issue with the example of Slovak returnees from Hungary. How much of the

population exchange narrative remains in the families from generation to generation?

Collective memory is related to common remembering. This contribution focuses on

self-identification of population exchange returnees, and in comparison with the second and

third generation perception. Has the opinion changed through several generations? What

Stigmata caused the population exchange?

Oral history as one of the research methods is suitable to study collective memory. It is

a capturing of personal references, which are irrecoverable in population exchange

transgenerational memory phenomenon. Thanks to the family memories of individual

narrators, we can observe the stories of pleasure, and happiness, as well as haunting, misery

and misunderstanding.

Key words: population exchange, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, oral history, transgenerational memory

1 The contribution was developed as part of the project APVV-15-0475 Tendencies in the Development of Ethnic Relations in Slovakia (Comparative Research of National Issues in 2004–2020) - (TESS2).

1

Introduction

The project My grandpa wasn’t a Hungarian! The Stigmata of home comers to

Czechoslovakia through the second and third generation viewpoint started in the autumn

2017. The aim of contribution is to clarify the collective memory and collective remembering

issue on the example of Slovak returnees’ descendants from Hungary. How much of the

narrative of the population exchange remains in the families from generation to generation?

How did they identify themselves? How have they talked about the exchange to their children

and grandchildren? The collective memory is related to common remembering. This

contribution shall focus on self-identification of population exchange returnees’ descendants.

Has the opinion changed through several generations? What Stigmata caused the population

exchange?

Czechoslovakia was united after World War II. The effort of Czechoslovak political

leaders was to create the national state of Czechs and Slovaks; therefore they requested the

transfer of other nationalities from the territory of Czechoslovakia. It was German, and with

regard to returning the southern regions occupied during the war by Hungary back to

Czechoslovakia, and also Hungarian minority. The winning powers denied one-way transfer

of Hungarians from Czechoslovakia as it was in case of German minority. Therefore, the

population exchange was considered as the only option. A population exchange between

Czechoslovakia and Hungary citizens occurred after World War II. Some Slovaks living in

diasporas in Hungary for decades (some from the 17 th century) didn´t receive the news of

population exchange very well. Others, especially the younger generation, were enthusiastic

about it. They expected new life in their homeland.

2

Situation after WWII

As part of the integration of southern Slovakia into the Czechoslovak Republic, the

Slovak National Council (SNR) began to prosecute war criminals. On 4 th February 1945, a

manifesto announced the return of the Czechoslovak citizenship to be a part of the

magyarized population of the Slovak nationality, declaring the departure of anyas (population 2

settled by the Hungarian Horthy regime who arrived at the territory of southern Slovakia after

the first Vienna Arbitration on 2 nd November 1938 and symbolized the element of

magayarization of Southern Slovakia). The solution to Slovakia's national problems was later

altered on the basis of the Moscow negotiations from 22 nd – 29th March 1945, which resulted

in the adoption of the first government program of the National Front of the Czechs and

Slovaks. The program was adopted in Košice on 5 th April 1945, the Košice Government

Program (KVP). The temporary government of Edvard Beneš planned to overcome the

problems that burdened the first common republic (28 th October 1918 – 6 th October 1938), and

in the framework of the promises of ethnic homogenization, exchanges as the sole option of

dealing with national minorities within the framework of the preservation of the

Czechoslovak National State. Article VIII of the KVP also regulated the issue of the 3

nationality of the German and Hungarian minorities in Slovakia, with the exception of

citizens with proven anti-fascist activities, Czechoslovak nationality being expropriated. 4

2 However, the Manifesto did not meet the normative scheme that was necessary to carry out the transfer of anyas from the territory of Slovakia. Some local authorities have organized their removal in their own way, but this process has been accompanied by insufficient technical means and problems. The rules for the removal of anyas were set on 5th May 1945, by the issue of the circular letter of the Commission of Interior, provided for National Committees and the Administrative Commissions. Transfer of anyas was the first officially prepared resettlement within the Czechoslovak-Hungarian post-war migration. ŠUTAJ, Štefan. Maďarská menšina na Slovensku v rokoch 1945–1948. Bratislava : Veda, 1993, p. 38 – 39. 3 At the expense of the idea of the czechoslovakism of the first Czechoslovak Republic, which defined Czechs and Slovaks as one nationality, the tendencies of the creation of the second republic were stipulated on the idea that the Czechs and Slovaks are two separate Slavic nations. BRENNER, Christiane. Mezi východem a západem: České politické diskurzy 1945–1948. Praha : Argo, 2015, p. 12. 4 See KOVÁČ, Andrej. Košický vládny program . Bratislava : SPN, 1977.

3

The abolition of citizenship based on ethnicity and its possible conditions for return were

declared by the KVP more liberal than in the later presidential decree from 2 nd August 1945,

on Czechoslovak citizenship (No. 33/1945), which legally forfeited the loss of citizens' rights

for those of German and Hungarian nationalities. The Košice government program meant for 5

the Slovak political representation adoption of the future political direction of the country,

which was agreed in Moscow by the Czechoslovak leaders from London and Moscow. 6

In the post-war Czechoslovak Republic, in areas with strong Hungarian and German

population, national committees were not established, but rather appointed administrative

commissions. The gradual limitation of German and Hungarian minorities’ rights continued in

the social, economic as well as cultural and educational spheres. The people’s judiciary was 7

in charge of the persecution of war criminals, and mainly affected the people who

collaborated with Germans, members of the Hlinka Slovak People's Party and in the southern

regions, members of the Hungarian political parties who helped to join the southern regions to

Horthy’s' Hungary in 1938. Party membership itself was not considered a criminal offense

(each individual was investigated on an individual case where specific actions and

engagements were taken into account), but often the membership in these parties became a

criterion for enrollment in the population exchange or deportation to Czech lands. The

post-war reform of land ownership and economic governance was implemented gradually in

three phases in Czechoslovakia.

5 ŠUTAJ, Štefan. Maďarská menšina na Slovensku v rokoch 1945–1948..., p. 47; also BRENNER, Christiane. Mezi východem a západem : České politické diskurzy 1945–1948. Praha : Argo, 2015, p. 12. 6 POPÉLY, Árpád. Plány na vysídlenie maďarského obyvateľstva v rámci výmeny obyvateľstva medzi Československom a Maďarskom. In FÓRUM spoločenskovedná revue. Šamorín : Fórum inštitút pre výskum menšín, 2009, p. 80. 7 The Commission of Education and Edification planned to maintain Hungarian national schools immediately after the war. The Principles of Preservation of Education were also taken over by the Delegation of the Slovak National Council for the Liberated Territory. The situation has changed with the adoption of the Košice government program and gradual abolition of Hungarian language in schools begun in May 1945. Teaching in Hungarian lasted only until the end of the school year, while another school year 1945/1946 started without Hungarian language. Hungarian societies and educational institutions were abolished, and the use of Hungarian was forbidden. ŠUTAJ, Štefan. Maďarská menšina na Slovensku v rokoch 1945–1948..., p. 41 – 42, 49.

4

In addition to the above mentioned anti-minority actions, an action was taken to expel

the Hungarian nationality to Bohemia in 1947–1949. The first transfers of the Hungarian 8

minority took place in connection with the restoration of the damaged areas of

Czechoslovakia and the “de-magyarization” of some cities (Košice, Trebišov, Michalovce,

etc.). The idea of a controlled transfer of Hungarians to Bohemia emerged in connection with

the use of unemployed workers from the Slovak territory in Bohemia (after the displaced

German population there remained free estates) and on the basis that the Hungarian question

would not be solved in the same way as the German – by one-way transfer. This act was 9

often justified by the need (recruitment) of the labour force that was so lacking in the Czech

border. But these attempts of clarification weren’t really accepted. The real reason was the

weakening of the Hungarian minority in Slovakia (especially in southern Slovakia). 10

The action that attracted public attention was undoubtedly the “re-slovakization” and 11

therefore the administrative return of the Slovak nationality to the magyarized Slovaks. Based

on the idea that a large part of the Hungarian minority is in fact a magyarized majority. “ In

fact, the whole event was based on a pressure on the Hungarians to declare themselves

Slovaks; in return they gained Czechoslovak citizenship and equal rights with other citizens

and above mentioned restrictions did not apply for them .” It remains paradoxical that some 12

8 „The Hungarian government accepted exchange, but no tone way transfer, it was willing to accept only war criminals. This treaty was signed on 27th February 1946.“ ŠINDELKA, Jan. Národnostní politika v ČSSR. Praha : Orbis, 1975, p. 115. 9 By Commission of social Affairs 25th September 1945, were set statutes governing the transfers of working people (unemployed workers, workers of enterprises planned to relocate to Slovakia and Hungarian workers and families who had citizenship prior to 1938) to Bohemia. ŠUTAJ, Štefan. Maďarská menšina na Slovensku v rokoch 1945–1948..., p. 63 – 67. 10 ŠUTAJ, Štefan. Nútené presídľovanie Maďarov do Čiech. Prešov : Universum, 2005, p. 12. 11 The process of re-slovakization action can be divided into two main stages. The first phase took place from June 1946 to January 1948 and the second continued from February 1948 until the end of the year. During the second phase, the re-slovakization commission mostly dealt with only latecomers who subsequently joined the action and the names of the persons prosecuted or intended for resettlement in Hungary and deportations to Bohemia were erased from the re-slovakization lists. ŠUTAJ, Štefan. Maďarská menšina na Slovensku v rokoch 1945–1948..., p. 117 – 118. 12 ŠINDEDLKA, Jan. Národnostní politika v ČSSR…, 1975, s. 116.

5

Hungarians have volunteered to be a part of the majority after the war, fearing all sorts of

restrictions. However, re-slovakization has many white spots: for example, it has not been 13

mentioned, since when is it possible to perceive re-slovakized Hungarians as Slovaks.

Moreover, the acquisition of Czechoslovak citizenship did not mean for the Hungarians the

return of property. Resolutions and, of course, other interventions against the Hungarian

minority have given rise to criticism, instead of removing historical injustices, new ones have

emerged.

Implementation of re-slovakization was empowered by the Ministry of Interior in the

resolution of Commission of Interior of 15 th February 1946. Until 28 th February of the same

year, directives to determine the progress of re-slovakization should have been prepared. On

2nd April 1946, the plenipotentiary committee set out two groups of population for whom this

action was concerned. Inhabitants who claimed to have Slovak nationality in the 1930 census

and perceived themselves as Slovaks were the first group, and in the second category

plenipotentiary committee included the inhabitants who considered themselves Slovaks after

the end of the war and were able to prove it, but had previously been considered Hungarian

nationality and at the same time had not committed any atrocities against the republic. For

re-slovakization could enroll any individual by the statement which truth was further verified

(in essence, there was objective evidence of belonging to the republic, the ability to speak in

Slovak, in some cases, surname, religion, graduated schools, etc.). The idea of

re-slovakization resonated in the Czechoslovak political circles for a longer period, and two

factors influenced the change of its character. The first was the effort to make the southern

13 In the territory of southern Slovakia, the process that is typical of the change of state borders took place since the end of the Second World War. The population began spontaneously to join the majority, even though it was formerly a part of the Hungarian nationality. This was reflected, for example, in the fact that parents sent their children to Slovak schools, changed street names (from Hungarian to Slovak), etc. See ŠUTAJ, Štefan. Reslovakizácia (zmena národnosti časti obyvateľstva Slovenska po II. svetovej vojne). Košice : Spoločenskovedný ústav SAV, 1991, p. 6.

6

territories of Slovakia more Slovak, and the second factor was fear of population from

population exchange, deportations to Bohemia or property confiscations. The basic document

of re-slovakization was the Decree of the Ministry of Interior 17 th June 1946 (No. 20 000 /

I-IV / 1-1946) and on 21 st June the Central Residency Commission was established, appointed

by the Ministry of Interior (from 1947 it was replaced by the commission named by Ministry

of the Interior).

The paradox of re-slovakization as noted in a book by Štefan Šutaj remains, that the

re-slovakization was originally intended to rescue magyarized Slovaks from the exchange of

the population, but instead of this inhabitants destined for exchange who must have been

rejected from the list enrolled for re-slovakization. After the dispute over the 14

decision-making powers between Commission of Interior and Ministry of Interior in 1947, a

new re-slovakization commission was appointed and the next course of action was updated.

The task of the commission was to evaluate the collected material consisting of lists of

residents registered for re-slovakization. In general, applications were approved for the whole

village, only problematic cases had been the subject of a debate. 15

The process of resettlement and settlement of Slovakia, population Relocation,

re-slovakization action and Population Exchange was organizationally managed by the

Settlement Office for Slovakia (OÚ for Slovakia). OÚ for Slovakia founded local offices

which managed its activities. The National Refugee Fund was in charge of property-law

reconciliation for displaced people of Hungarian nationality. That Fund was established by the

Decree of President No. 108/45 of 25 th October 1945. 16

14 ŠUTAJ, Štefan. Maďarská menšina na Slovensku v rokoch 1945–1948..., p. 89. 15 ŠUTAJ, Štefan. Maďarská menšina na Slovensku v rokoch 1945–1948..., p. 69, 81 – 87, 116. 16 ŠUTAJ, Štefan. Maďarská menšina na Slovensku v rokoch 1945–1948..., p. 46; also POPÉLY, Árpád. Plány na vysídlenie maďarského obyvateľstva v rámci výmeny obyvateľstva medzi Československom a Maďarskom..., p. 82.

7

Population exchange

The exchange of the population as a method of solving inter-state conflicts originates

in the period after the First World War. Previous examples of population exchanges can be

found in the Neuilly Treaty, which, as part of the Paris conference (after the First World War),

included a paragraph specifying the reciprocal evictions of minorities for the first time, which

became a precedent for later population exchanges as part of ethnic cleansing. Historically,

the first exchange of population is considered the exchange between Greece and Turkey after

the First World War under the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923. Both treaties (Neuilly and

Lausanne) have become a model for solving later intra-political and foreign-political

conflicts. In the 1930s, population exchange was recognized as one of the possible ways of

solving and peace-building within ethnic relations. 17

The attitude of the public towards the Hungarian minority was very similar to that of

the German minority at the beginning. It was hostile, but unlike the German minority, this

aversion did not gain foreign support. Similar to the German minority, Hungarians were

aggrieved by some presidential decrees and regulations of the SNR. “From the Czechoslovak

point of view, the prevailing opinion of political representations played an important role,

which, in particular, under the influence of Edvard Beneš, claimed that non-Slavic minorities

had caused the break-up of the inter-war Czechoslovak Republic. Seeking peaceful future

development, therefore, the Czechoslovak political representations ... adopted the concept of

building Czechoslovakia as a national state of the Czechs and Slovaks, without non-Slavic

minorities " .“ Czechoslovak politicians tried to succeed internationally with a proposal to 18

17 THER, Philipp. Temná strana národních států: Etnické čistky v moderní Evropě. Praha : Argo, 2017, p. 42, 44. 18 ŠUTAJ, Štefan. Výmena obyvateľstva medzi Československom a Maďarskom – migrácie a Slovensko – výskum a výsledky. In SÁPOSOVÁ, Zlatica – ŠUTAJ, Štefan (ed.). Povojnové migrácie a výmena obyvateľstva medzi Československom a Maďarskom . Prešov : Universum, 2010, p. 10.

8

expel the Hungarian population. In order to fulfil the vision of state of the Czechs and the

Slovaks preferred by the Czechoslovak political elites after the end of the Second World War,

an international approval of the Allies was needed for the transfer of the Hungarian

population from the territory of Slovakia. This issue was not discussed at the conferences in

Tehran, Yalta and Potsdam. That is why a number of national anti-minority measures were

implemented during 1945–1948. 19

In addition to resolving national problems aimed at creating the national state of the

Czechs and Slovaks, it was an important goal of population exchange to save as many

Slovaks as possible from assimilation in other countries. Prime Minister Zdeněk Fierlinger

declared at the re-emigration talks of 31 st July 1945 that the Czechoslovak government would

seek the return of the largest possible number of Slovak and Czech compatriots (from

countries such as the USSR, Poland, Austria, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, France, Belgium,

Germany, overseas) back home. According to the data, it was assumed that more than 2

million Slovaks lived outside Czechoslovakia (476,000 in Hungary). Within this total

re-migration event, 200,000 people returned to the territory of Czechoslovakia (of which

approximately 71,787 were Slovaks from Hungary).

In June 1945, the Presidium of SNR held a meeting where members agreed on the

urgent need to sign an agreement on the exchange of the population as soon as possible. The

adopted ceasefire agreement with Hungary, besides anyas, did not solve the problem of the

Hungarian minority, so it was important to start bilateral negotiations and agree on the terms

19 At the same time, the Hungarian efforts to return the territory, i.e. the change of borders, did not pass. See ŠUTAJ, Štefan. Nútené presídľovanie Maďarov do Čiech. Prešov : Universum, 2005, p. 34. The attitude of the majority towards Hungarian minority was not positive after the Second World War, as did of minority towards the state. The Hungarians at that time lost Czechoslovak citizenship, they were withdrawn from agricultural land, they were released from state services, Hungarian education was abolished, Hungarian cultural life was abolished, and efforts were made to resettle the minority with emphasis on future assimilation. PETRÁŠ, René. Menšiny v komunistickém Československu. Praha : VIP Books, 2007, p. 102 – 103; also ŠINDELKA, Jan. Národnostní politika v ČSSR. Praha : Orbis, 1975, p. 115.

9

of the exchange. Hungarian foreign policy oriented towards obtaining support for alternatives

of the status of the Hungarian minority in Czechoslovakia, which rejected the exchange of the

population. At the same time, it sought to consolidate its position in the European area.

Because of this Czechoslovak diplomacy also tried to speed up negotiations on the exchange.

A Czechoslovak-Hungarian meeting took place in Prague on 2 nd December 2, 1945.

Meeting in Prague was unsuccessful and the next meeting took place on 6 th – 10th

February 1946. The agreement on the exchange of the population was signed on 27 th February

1946 and consisted of 14 articles (see Annex 1). In Article V, it established the principle of

reciprocity, on the basis of which as many Hungarians moved from the territory of

Czechoslovakia, as many Slovaks and Czechs from Hungary left for Czechoslovakia. For this

reason, propaganda in the implementation of the exchange played an important role (see

Annexes no. 2 – 5: Promotional and propaganda posters for illustration of propaganda carried

out on the territory of Hungary). Article VIII of the Agreement set the resettlement of

Hungarians who, in the territory of Czechoslovakia „... committed crimes under §1-4 of SNR

regulation no. 33 of 13 th May 1945 and according to §5 of this Regulation.” Two

Czechoslovak and two Hungarian representatives were appointed for the Mixed Commission

founded under Article X of the Exchange Agreement and its role was to solve all issues in the

course of the exchange of the population. As part of the redistribution of tasks related to the

implementation of the Exchange Agreement, Commission of Education, Culture and Social

Affairs was entrusted with propaganda actions in the territory of Czechoslovakia and

Hungary. The preparatory work for the return of Slovaks from abroad (registration for the

exchange and collection of applications) was to be governed by the Czechoslovak

Resettlement Commission on 19 th February 1946. The replacement of the Hungarian

population from the territory of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic was chiefly entrusted to

10

the Settlement Office and Daniel Okáli as a government representative, directly subordinate to

the Government and the Board of Commissioners with decision-making powers at the level of

ministries and commissions.

By signing the Agreement on Population exchange, the sole exchange process itself

did not begin immediately. Hungarian political representatives promised a change in the

solution of the Hungarian question in Slovakia from the upcoming conference in Paris. The

delay in the exchange was justified by a breach of contractual terms by Czechoslovakia (e.g.

non-stop confiscation of property, bad situation of Hungarians in Czechoslovakia, persecution

of Hungarian citizens). The Slovak officials tried to speed up the exchange, so they organized

one-way transports (7,935 Slovaks from Hungary) from 18 th September to 1 st December 1946

with the consent of the Hungarian party, aiming help the socially weaker part of the Slovak

population in Hungary. The response to unrealized exchange was also the deportation of the

Hungarian population to the Czech lands (in the second half of 1946). The beginning of the

exchange resulted in the termination of one-way transports and the issue of three protest notes

from the Hungarian side. There were many delays and the Czechoslovak Party considered the

Hungarian demands as interference in the internal affairs of the state, and on the other side the

Hungarian side demanded termination of deportations as a condition for the start of the

exchange. However, we can say that the violent deportation of the Hungarian population to

Bohemia led the Czechoslovak party to accelerate the fulfilment of the Agreement on the

Exchange of Population. The direct connection with its fulfilment was the fifth point of the

Peace Treaty signed with Hungary (at the Paris Conference) on 10 th February 1947, according

to which was the duty of Hungarian politicians to start negotiations on the solution of the

Hungarian question in Czechoslovakia within six months after signing the treaty. After

several sessions and disagreements, the population started on 12 th April 1947, the first

11

transports were exchanged. Due to the Christmas holidays, the transports process was

suspended on 19 th December. The course of the exchange was accompanied by insufficient

technical, material security, collisions in the train transport, unevenness of the property

transported and other problems. An estimate of the statistics suggests 200,000 Slovaks live on

the territory of Hungary. On the basis of the population exchange Agreement, 55,487

Hungarians were transferred to Hungary and 59,774 Slovaks to Czechoslovakia .

The interviews were conducted in the form of a biographical narrative. Family

memory doesn’t represent a clearly defined and directly addressable inventory of events, but

it consists of a communicative episode that stands in relation to family members. A young

generation has often generalized an image of population change. It is also typical for younger

generations that they perceive their (grand) parents as heroes, victims, etc. Younger

generations want to be loyal, so they don’t describe the image of (grand) parents in negative

ways. This may change the meaning of the message. Most research dealing with

transgenerational memory struggles with cumulative heroism. We had the same experience

when doing this project and some narrators had this tendency too. Collective memory shows

generationally the specific concept of personality ration (daughter sees father in a different

way than the granddaughter).

Minority policy in Czechoslovakia was on a relatively solid level, but it was not

enough for a large Hungarian minority. The minority lived relatively compactly in southern

Slovakia (at the border with the mother state).

12

Figure 1 – The number of people belonging to Hungarian nationality in 1946 during the population census and

statistical calculations of births and deaths of Hungarian nationality based on statistical estimates in 1937 and

between 1947–1949. 20

Oral history research

Research was focused on transgenerational memory. How do people shape an image

of the past? What affects us all? These are issues that few know how to answer. We have 21

tried to answer not only them in our research.

The research itself was carried out on the territory of Slovakia (the Region of Košice,

where still live a relatively large Hungarian minority). Our narrators were descendants of 22

20 Based on the Historical Statistical Yearbook of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic in 1985, elaborated by Klara Kohoutová. 21 „The ideas that pupils bear in their heads come from places that have little to do with the classroom - from the media, mass culture, church, home. Before we blame the unpreparedness of these historical ideas, we should ask ourselves how they arise and how they are grounded in historical consciousness ... Investigations can tell us what pupils do not know. But they leave us completely in the uncertainty of what they know - and from where." WINEBURG, Sam. Sin machen: Wie Erinnerung zwischen den Generationen gebildet wird. In WELZER, Harold (ed.). Das soziale Gedächtnis : Geschichte, Erinnerung, Tradierung. Hamburg : Hamburger Edition, p. 181. 22 According to the latest census, 74 743 people subscribed for Hungarian nationality. In Census of inhabitants, homes and flats 2011. Table 115 Population by gender and nationality, Košice region.

13

exchanged Slovaks. The question of identity played a key role in our research. All of the

narrators interviewed by us, consider themselves as Slovaks, so they are part of the majority.

But what about their (grand) parents? Oral-historical research was preceded by several basic

questions, which we grouped thematically into seven categories:

1. FAMILY

• Can you say a few words about the family from which you come from?

• Which environment influenced you personally, culturally, politically?

• Where were you born (in Slovakia or in Hungary?)

• Could you tell me a few words about your parents and siblings?

• From what environment do you come from?

• What language did you speak at home?

• What was the employment of your parents?

2. EDUCATION AND WORK

• Where and how did you study?

• The personality of the teachers who influenced the narrator

• What did you enjoy or did not enjoy at school or study; favourite or unpopular subjects

• Assessing the benefits of study or education from the point of view of later profession and

life

• What are you doing; specifics

• Advantages or disadvantages

• What do you enjoyor did not enjoy

14

3. FREE TIME

• How he spent his spare time, what about his weekends, holidays or feasts

• Hobbies

4. EXCHANGE OF POPULATION AND LIFE IN THE SOCIALIST CZECHOSLOVAKIA

• How did the exchange of people affect your family?

• Was the population exchange topic discussed at home?

• Did the (grand) parents remember the exchange (leaving Hungary)?

• How did parents perceive it?

• Was the topic taboo?

• What was their life in socialist Czechoslovakia? (Did they see the difference; compare the

situation in Hungary with the situation in Czechoslovakia?

• How were you and your parents perceived? Was your family perceived as Hungarian?

• What citizenship do you and your parents have?

• What language do your parents speak in ordinary communication?

• Are your parents happy to live in Slovakia?

5. PUBLIC SECTOR AND POLICY

• Have you been following the course of events in foreign countries before 1989? What about

Hungary?

6. ETHICS

• How do you perceive yourself? As a Slovak / Hungarian - and your parents?

15

• Is it ethnicity and nationality important to you? And for your parents?

• Does anyone in your family associate with a community or organization that connects

people with similar historical experience?

• How do you personally perceive the exchange of population?

7. CONCLUSION

• How do you personally perceive the exchange of inhabitants?

• How do your parents evaluate the exchange of inhabitants today?

• Do they pass on information further? For example, to your children and grandchildren?

• Do you think that population exchange is a major historical milestone of contemporary

history?

Oral historical interviews are always very important for self-identification, which can be

manifested by oscillation between “we” and “they.” In a majority, this phenomenon is usually

not so obvious. However, in our case, oscillation occurred several times. In some, it is not

easy to analyse the true reason for oscillations, as it is related to many factors. One of them

may be (not) conscious stigma (the difference from the majority could cause narrator

problems in the past, the narrator may not be completely identified with his identity, etc.).

Similarly, it may be a cognitive distortion that is close to people – in the case where the

narrator speaks “we” he identifies himself, it is usually a positive assessment. On the contrary,

when he uses “they: dissociates from what’s said, at the same time it is usually a negative

assessment. In some cases, if the narrator deals with the issue of that minority on a

professional basis, it may signal some kind of neutrality, that is, the use of “they,” not because

he does not identify with the minority. What matters most is what the narrator emphasizes –

or the oscillation between “we” and “they” is deliberate or not. In our research, this was

16

primarily a sign of a clear definition. As mentioned above, neither of the narrators considers

himself to be Hungarian, even many of them do not speak the Hungarian language (there are

some exceptions). Although their ancestors were born in Hungary, their mother tongue was

Slovak.

“I have spoken to my parents and old parents Slovak, but those who stayed there

do not know Slovak anymore and even they are ashamed that they are Slovaks.

There is a quite a strong pressure on the Hungarians to be Hungarians.“ 23

“My father's family spoke bilingually. Mainly Slovak at home, but they had to

learn Hungarian as they worked, lived and went to school there. His father spent

his early childhood there. It was a Slovak village in Hungary ... He still has

passive knowledge of Hungarian until then.” 24

Based on interviews we can say that the information about population exchange was

maintained in families, but not to the same extent because of history, stereotyping and

sensitivity of this topic.

“Yes. Indeed, in our family the information of population exchange was

maintained. Our family was active, did not want to forget about Hungary. We use

to go at memorial celebrations. We meet with the other Slovak returnees. It's alive

in our family.“ 25

23 Interview by Lucia HELDÁKOVÁ and Klara KOHOUTOVÁ (SVU CSPV SAV) with M. L., recorded on 4th December 2017. The transcript of the interview is stored in the private archive of interviews. 24 Interview by Lucia HELDÁKOVÁ and Klara KOHOUTOVÁ (SVU CSPV SAV) with J. G., recorded on 26th April 2018. The transcript of the interview is stored in the private archive of interviews. 25 Interview by Lucia HELDÁKOVÁ and Klara KOHOUTOVÁ (SVU CSPV SAV) with S. S., recorded on 15th January 2018. The transcript of the interview is stored in the private archive of interviews.

17

“As I said, I know that my grandparents lived in Hungary where they were born

and then after World War II. They came to Piešťany in Slovakia. But concerning

the exchange, how it was, what it meant for them I cannot remember whether they

were talking about it.“ 26

On the example of the abovementioned citations, it is evident that in each family the

information on population exchange was kept individually. While the first narrator comes

from a family where the tradition of exchange was passed from generation to generation, even

the family is still visiting commemorative acts, the second narrator comes from a family

where the information was, but they do not work with it.

The narrators often pointed out that their (grand) parents wouldn’t be willing to make

an interview. The relevant historical event is not always “opened” by participants, but it is

becoming open to members of younger generations. It wasn’t a taboo in any of the families. It

is an important factor that the population exchange took place 70 years ago. Most of the

population exchange participants were young, so they looked at the exchange through the

prism of children/teenagers.

Their (grand) parents who came from Hungary have always had Slovak citizenship

according to the narrators. Probably the narrators reflected on the citizenship of their

ancestors only after the exchange, because by that time the inhabitants were living in

Hungarian territory, and so they were members of the Hungarian state. Families spoke the

Slovak language at home and some families lived in Hungary in an area with a high

concentration of the Slovak population. The population exchange hadn´t affected only a close

26 Interview by Lucia HELDÁKOVÁ and Klara KOHOUTOVÁ (SVU CSPV SAV) with A. V., recorded on 4th May 2018. The transcript of the interview is stored in the private archive of interviews.

18

family. The entire community was taken from its home and then relocated to Slovakia or to

the Czech border region (former Sudetenland).

“The citizenship of my family is Slovak, I do not know they have different. They

were Slovaks living in Hungary, in the Slovak part. They always spoke Slovak

language. Grandma used to speak the Slovak dialect that she had learned as a

child from her parents who were also born in Hungary. In her dialect there were

also Hungarian elements.“ 27

“My grandparents always spoke Slovak. They were born in Hungary, but on the

Lower Land (Alfőld) and it was Slovak part. My whole family has Slovak

citizenship. We do not have Hungarians in the family, except those who had

stayed in Hungary and already spoken Hungarian. The younger generation no

longer speaks Slovak. Nor do I speak Hungarian.“ 28

The reasons why Slovak families living in Hungary decided to sign up for population

exchange were different. Some of the resettled families believed that the conditions would be

better in Czechoslovakia. They experienced a strong national pressure during the Second

World War in Horthy's Hungary. After the Second World War there was strong propaganda as

“a deliberate attempt to manipulate with attitudes, opinions, or actions of people ... It

27 Interview by Lucia HELDÁKOVÁ and Klara KOHOUTOVÁ (SVU CSPV SAV) with S. S., recorded on 15th January 2018. The transcript of the interview is stored in the private archive of interviews. 28 Interview by Lucia HELDÁKOVÁ and Klara KOHOUTOVÁ (SVU CSPV SAV) with A. V., recorded on 4th May 2018. The transcript of the interview is stored in the private archive of interviews.

19

spreads positive or negative ideas, arguments or rumours to average public opinion, support

it, and ultimately secure or maintain power”. 29

“Under the Fascist Horthy regime, the Slovaks living in Alfőld suffered from

national pressure. The Hungarians mocked, insulted and humiliated them. By

resettlement to Czechoslovakia, they expected a more peaceful life, where they

would never be hurt and offended. Compared to Hungary, which was in a very

difficult economic situation, the image of Slovakia was much idealized.

Czechoslovakia was displayed as the land of prosperity and was tempting for the

poorer classes of Slovaks on the Alfőld.“ 30

“I do not know exactly, but I know that there was a strong propaganda that led

them to do it. The whole family also left with their old parents. Grandma left with

two siblings. Grandpa left with two siblings so he put the whole family together.

Only those who were more closely related to the Hungarians remained there.“ 31

The significance of propaganda in the process of population exchange came from the

mentioned Article V of the Population Exchange agreement about the principle of parity and

reciprocity, because for how many Slovaks would be persuaded to sign up for exchange, that

many Hungarians would have to leave the territory of Czechoslovakia. The effort was to

transfer as many Hungarians as possible. Several forms of propaganda were used in the

29 BYSTRICKÝ, Valerián – ROGUĽOVÁ, Jaroslava (eds.): Storočie propagandy. Slovensko v osídlach ideológií. Bratislava : AEPress, 2005, p. 5. 30 Interview by Lucia HELDÁKOVÁ and Klara KOHOUTOVÁ (SVU CSPV SAV) with H. K., recorded on 3rd February 2018. The transcript of the interview is stored in the private archive of interviews. 31 Interview by Lucia HELDÁKOVÁ and Klara KOHOUTOVÁ (SVU CSPV SAV) with O. M., recorded on 24th November 2017. The transcript of the interview is stored in the private archive of interviews.

20

propaganda of population exchange: leaflet propaganda, verbal propaganda (radio, print,

presentations ...), deputing of delegations and whispering propaganda. And there were two

main themes used:

1. an emotional appeal to a sense of belonging to the homeland – the action Mother is

calling you;

2. presentation of the winning Czechoslovakia as an economically advanced region

with favourable living conditions.

The reasons why families signed up for exchange were probably plenty. The narrators

themselves did not know the true reason. In this case, we can only speculate about the role of

propaganda.

“I do not know how my family was perceived after returning to Slovakia. I did

not go through it. But I think the biggest problem was in their heads. They rather

had the feeling that someone was looking at them. I do not think people would

have badly accepted them, but they rather closed themselves in some sense. But it

is about everyone who moves abroad.“ 32

All narrators told us that they are Slovaks. Every one of them was born in Slovakia.

The narrators couldn’t tell us how their family was perceived in Czechoslovakia. Today, we

would not probably find out whether the majority looked at the resettlement as Hungarians.

Many of the resettlers aren’t alive today. However, self-perception is identical to all displaced

persons. They considered themselves as Slovaks. The family history of each family is

32 Interview by Lucia HELDÁKOVÁ and Klara KOHOUTOVÁ (SVU CSPV SAV) with J. G., recorded on 26th April 2018. The transcript of the interview is stored in the private archive of interviews.

21

different. Some families came to the village, others to the town. That's why we see different

perceptions.

We found out two reasons why our narrators had become interested in the exchange

topic: First one was that they were interested in family history. The second one was that they

participated in memorial acts of piety with the family. In spite of the end of the population

exchange in 1948, its consequences were also present in the following period. The process of

the exchange was less favourable to the Hungarian minority, but the consequences of the

exchange were worse for the Slovaks.

“I became interested in exchange due to my personal motivation. This topic will

be one of the most interesting for me. My family used to talk about the exchange.

We also went every year to memorial celebrations, and we also visited Alfőld.

That's where my old parents lived. My grandmother and mom also took part in a

meeting in Pitvaros in 2017. Grandma brought me a book about Pitvaros and its

citizens from the memorial celebration. After I read it, I started to take interest in

exchange so I found out that also we have our roots in Hungary. That is the

reason why my interest in exchange is in my case purely personal motivation.“ 33

“It was a coincidence. We had to write a paper at school. And then my

grandmother began telling me a story about what happened to them as they were

exchanged. I did not hear about it before. It was interesting to me and then I

wrote the paper about it. So I asked my grandmother to tell me more about the

33 Interview by Lucia HELDÁKOVÁ and Klara KOHOUTOVÁ (SVU CSPV SAV) with K. D., recorded on 15th January 2018. The transcript of the interview is stored in the private archive of interviews.

22

exchange and the story about how they got from Bekesscaba (Alfőld) to

Slovakia.“ 34

The displaced part of the Slovak minority has often found itself in an unprivileged

place, it was not considered to be Slovak, and paradoxically, it has often been Hungarized.

The rest of the Slovak minority in the Hungarian territory remained significantly weakened

after the population exchange. Intelligence and a conscious part of the Slovaks have been

resettled, and the preservation of Slovak enclaves in the Hungarian environment has become

difficult and often impossible. Culture, traditions and customs have begun to fall and the

Slovak minority has begun to assimilate in Hungary.

Conclusion

Based on individual testimonies, we can see that remembering the exchange of the

population was individual in selected families. Our research focuses on family memory on the

example of families that have undergone population change. The aim of the contribution was

to point out how information on population exchange is mediated to the next generation, and

whether it is re-instrumentalized in families that have undergone exchange. The interviews

were conducted in the form of a biographical narrative focusing on the aforementioned

population exchange. We were methodologically based on the principles of oral history.

Oral history as one of the research methods is suitable for the study of collective

memory. It is capturing personal references, which are irrecoverable in population exchange

transgenerational memory phenomenon. Thanks to families' memories of individual narrators,

34 Interview by Lucia HELDÁKOVÁ and Klara KOHOUTOVÁ (SVU CSPV SAV) with Z. F., recorded on 3rd October 2017. The transcript of the interview is stored in the private archive of interviews.

23

we can observe the stories of pleasure, happiness but even haunting, misery and

misunderstanding.

A certain pattern was German research from Harald Welzer and Sabine Moller. 35

Family memory is not a clearly defined and directly addressable list of events, but consists of

communicative episodes that stand in relation to family members. The young generation often

has a generalized image of population exchange. In addition, past events are universally

standardized through the teaching of history. Typical for younger generations is that they

made heroes of their (grand) parents, victims, etc. Loyalty is also included in the description

of events where they do not want to portray parents negatively. This may change the meaning

of the message. Most of these studies are experiencing cumulative heroisation. Even in our

case, some narrators tended to do so. The phenomenon of cumulative heroism shows to what

extent an emotionally-based understanding of the individual roles of loved ones creates an

individual's historical consciousness. Collective memory shows a generationally specific

concept of the personality ratio (the daughter sees the father differently than the

granddaughter). In such types of research, researchers must also prepare for the fact that

witnesses often act as victims (for example, victims of war). In the case of our research, in the

second and third generation, the parents appeared in the memories of the exchange as

sufferers. Research has also struggled with the traditional types: justification, distancing,

delusions, fascination, overcoming. Occasionally, the frame changed when stereotypical

features were used.

On the basis of the interviews, it can be noted that the information on population

exchange was maintained in the families. But not at the same degree. It is related to the

sensitivity of the subject, the history and the stereotyping of the event.

35 WELZER, Harald – MOLLEROVÁ, Sabine – TSCHUGGNALLOVÁ, Karoline. Můj děda nebyl nácek. Nacismus a holocaust v rodinné paměti. Praha: Argo, 2010.

24

The relevant historical event is not always opened by involved persons, but it is

becoming open to members of younger generations. This is also the case of our research. The

research did not meet that returnees spoke about exchange spontaneously. The descendants

learned about the exchange of the population rather through the childhood stories of their

parents, the comparison of life in Hungary and Slovakia etc. None of the narrators uttered a

narrative that primarily focused on exchange. In none of the families, however, was the

subject tabooed. If the narrators asked about the exchange, they were always answered (in

some cases in detail, in other briefly). It is more than 70 years from the exchange of the

population and that is also an important factor. At the same time, most of the population

involved in exchange were children or young at that time, so they looked at the exchange

through the prism of children’s / teenagers’ eyes. But after some time they realized the

seriousness of the situation. So we met with three aspects of remembrance:

1. At the time of the exchange when the narrators' (grand) parent was a child and did

not see it traumatically, rather on the contrary, found new friends and so on.

2. At the time of maturity under the Communist regime, they began to realize the

negative side of things, propaganda, pressure, etc.

3. Nowadays the exchange is being perceived rather positive, it is influenced by the

political situation in Slovakia and Hungary.

The narrators could not tell us how their family was perceived in Czechoslovakia.

Whether the majority were looking at them, we probably do not know about the Hungarians

anymore. Many of the displaced people do not live today. However, self-perception is

identical to all displaced persons. They considered themselves Slovaks, even though their

position after return was not equal to the majority in interpersonal relations. For every

25

relocated family, the situation was different. While some went to the village, others to the

towns. And that's why we see a different perception.

The reasons why the narrators began to become interested in exchange were of a dual

type. Either they began to be interested in family history and discovered this topic. Or they

had visited together with the family some kind of memorial event.

Annexes

Annex no. 1 – The first page of the Population exchange Agreement. 36

36 The Population exchange Agreement. In GABZDILOVÁ-OLEJNÍKOVÁ, Soňa – OLEJNÍK, Milan – ŠUTAJ, Štefan. Nemci a Maďari na Slovensku v rokoch 1945–1953 v dokumentoch I. Prešov : UNIVERSUM, 2005, p. 133; also The Population exchange Agreement. In Collection of laws and regulations of the Czechoslovak Republic [online].1946, part 60, issued 27th June 1946, p. 1027 – 1035. Available on the internet: http://ftp.aspi.cz/opispdf/1946/060-1946.pdf [cit. 17. 11. 2018].

26

Annex no. 2 – Promotional and propaganda poster: Slovakia is calling you . 37

37 Poster: Slovakia is calling you. Source: Munkácsy Mihály Múzeum, Békéscsaba, fund (f.) J. Sekerka, inventory number (i.n.) Hd.28.56.8.

27

Annex no. 3 – Promotional and propaganda poster: The peasant in Czechoslovakia sells its

products well and buys cheaply. 38

38 Poster: The peasant in Czechoslovakia sells its products well and buys cheaply. Source: Munkácsy Mihály Múzeum, Békéscsaba, f. J. Sekerka, i.n. Hd. 2003.3.5.

28

Annex no. 4 – Promotional and propaganda poster: Return home. You will come to yours . 39

39 Poster: Return home. You will come to yours . Source: Munkácsy Mihály Múzeum, Békéscsaba, f. J. Sekerka, i.n. Hd.88.56.10.

29

Annex no. 5 – Promotional and propaganda poster: Slovaks (men) and Slovaks (women)!

Your homeland is calling you! You are calling by the Free Czechoslovak Republic! – do not

miss the chance of your return!- 40

40 Poster: Slovaks (men) and Slovaks (women)! Your homeland is calling you! You are calling by the Free Czechoslovak Republic! – do not miss the chance of your return!-. Source: Munkácsy Mihály Múzeum, Békéscsaba, f. J. Sekerka, i.n. Hd. 88.56.9.

30

References

BRENNER, Christiane. Mezi východem a západem : České politické diskurzy 1945–1948.

Praha : Argo, 2015.

BYSTRICKÝ, Valerián – ROGUĽOVÁ, Jaroslava (eds.): Storočie propagandy. Slovensko v

osídlach ideológií. Bratislava : AEPress, 2005.

Collection of laws and regulations of the Czechoslovak Republic [online].1946, part 60,

issued 27th June 1946, p. 1027 – 1035. Available on the internet:

http://ftp.aspi.cz/opispdf/1946/060-1946.pdf

GABZDILOVÁ-OLEJNÍKOVÁ, Soňa – OLEJNÍK, Milan – ŠUTAJ, Štefan. Nemci

a Maďari na Slovensku v rokoch 1945 – 1953 v dokumentoch I. Prešov : Universum, 2005. s.

133.

Historical Statistical Yearbook of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic in 1985.

KOVÁČ, Andrej. Košický vládny program . Bratislava : SPN, 1977.

PETRÁŠ, René. Menšiny v komunistickém Československu . Praha : VIP Books, 2007.

POPÉLY, Árpád. Plány na vysídlenie maďarského obyvateľstva v rámci výmeny

obyvateľstva medzi Československom a Maďarskom. In FÓRUM spoločenskovedná revue.

Šamorín : Fórum inštitút pre výskum menšín, 2009, p. 79 – 93.

Census of inhabitants, homes and flats 2011. Table 115 Population by gender and nationality,

Košice region.

ŠINDELKA, Jan. Národnostní politika v ČSSR . Praha : Orbis, 1975.

31

ŠUTAJ, Štefan. Maďarská menšina na Slovensku v rokoch 1945–1948 . Bratislava : Veda,

1993.

ŠUTAJ, Štefan. Nútené presídľovanie Maďarov do Čiech . Prešov : Universum, 2005.

ŠUTAJ, Štefan. Reslovakizácia (zmena národnosti časti obyvateľstva Slovenska po II.

svetovej vojne). Košice : Spoločenskovedný ústav SAV, 1991.

ŠUTAJ, Štefan. Výmena obyvateľstva medzi Československom a Maďarskom – migrácie a

Slovensko – výskum a výsledky. In SÁPOSOVÁ, Zlatica – ŠUTAJ, Štefan (ed .). Povojnové

migrácie a výmena obyvateľstva medzi Československom a Maďarskom . Prešov : Universum,

2010, p. 7 – 17.

THER, Philipp. Temná strana národních států: Etnické čistky v moderní Evropě. Praha :

Argo, 2017.

WELZER, Harald – MOLLEROVÁ, Sabine – TSCHUGGNALLOVÁ, Karoline. Můj děda

nebyl nácek. Nacismus a holocaust v rodinné paměti. Praha: Argo, 2010.

WINEBURG, Sam. Sin machen: Wie Erinnerung zwischen den Generationen gebildet wird.

In WELZER, Harold (ed.). Das soziale Gedächtnis : Geschichte, Erinnerung, Tradierung.

Hamburg : Hamburger Edition, p. 179 – 218.

Archive resources

Munkácsy Mihály Múzeum, Békéscsaba, f. J. Sekerka.

Interview

Interview by Lucia HELDÁKOVÁ and Klara KOHOUTOVÁ (SVU CSPV SAV) with A. V.,

recorded on 4 th May 2018.

32

Interview by Lucia HELDÁKOVÁ and Klara KOHOUTOVÁ (SVU CSPV SAV) with H. K.,

recorded on 3 rd February 2018.

Interview by Lucia HELDÁKOVÁ and Klara KOHOUTOVÁ (SVU CSPV SAV) with J. G.,

recorded on 26 th April 2018.

Interview by Lucia HELDÁKOVÁ and Klara KOHOUTOVÁ (SVU CSPV SAV) with K. D.,

recorded on 15 th January 2018.

Interview by Lucia HELDÁKOVÁ and Klara KOHOUTOVÁ (SVU CSPV SAV) with M. L.,

recorded on 4 th December 2017.

Interview by Lucia HELDÁKOVÁ and Klara KOHOUTOVÁ (SVU CSPV SAV) with O. M.,

recorded on 24 th November 2017.

Interview by Lucia HELDÁKOVÁ and Klara KOHOUTOVÁ (SVU CSPV SAV) with S. S.,

recorded on 15 th January 2018.

Interview by Lucia HELDÁKOVÁ and Klara KOHOUTOVÁ (SVU CSPV SAV) with Z. F.,

recorded on 3 rd October 2017.

33